Although
hardly in the nature of literary caviar, the Mint Reports are an absolute
necessity to anybody who attempts to make a serious study of Canadian coinage.
They may he considered a kind of outline which has to he carefully filled in to
make complete sense. Details are given in some instances and are largely wanting
or even left out of others. The undoubted rarity of the series is the 1935
Report.

Evidently
put out in haste and under work pressure, the first Report is a mimeographed
production of no impressive appearance but whoever typed it did neat and careful
work. It will he recalled that the Royal Canadian Mint officially began on
December 1st. 1931. This being true, we should then suppose that there would be
a 1932 Report, hut such is not the case. Instead, we are given abstracts for
1932, 1933, 1934 and which are attached to the 1935 Report. Recapitulations of
statistical information are given which begin with 1908. It will be remembered
that 1908 established the Ottawa Mint as a branch of the Royal Mint and this
complicates the situation.

Those
who wish information about Canadian coinage during the 1908 to 1931 period must
consult the records of the Royal Mint since no separate Reports were put out for
Ottawa. In the same manner, the Mint Reports of the United States
are the work of
Philadelphia
and the activities of
Denver, San Francisco, and New Orleans
are included in them. Royal Mint Reports are also needed for any information
going hack to 1858, the first year of coinage for
Canada
of official nature.

One
of the most annoying information gaps centres about the coin distribution
figures which are wanting for the dollars of the first series, figures which do
not begin until 1941. We can only suppose that in the beginning the Mint did not
think such statistics of any particular importance.

Regular
millesimal fineness tables begin with the 1936 Report and the 1935 Report lacks
one. However, it does give the figures in a different way. Since the year 1935
lacked a half dollar there is naturally no figure for it.

For
some unknown reason, die usage information is anything but complete for the
first series dollars and this deficiency extends to the other coins. Only
incidentally is the die average for the dollars of 1935 given. Averages for
other coins go without mention except
for the bronze cents. Regular information on the die averages begins with the
1940 Report and there is consequently a four year gap.

Use
of obverses and reverses goes without mention for the first three years. In the
1938 Report we are given a table of information on this point and it continues
without fail thereafter.

One
thing that is a decided puzzle is the erratic nature of the table figures on die
usage. As will be noted, until the year 1935 is reached, differences are not
great. Practically no information is given for the first series dollars although
we do know that dies of high grade steel were used. We are assured that the
chromium plated dies proved superior. Yet if we go on the submitted figures the
steel dies of the first years obtained good results.

Both
1954 and 1955 show a sharp upward turn for no reason that is given in the
Reports. The 1957 and 1958 Reports show an increase almost impossible to
understand; that is, acting upon the presumption that there was no decided
change in the dies of any kind. As far as appearance is concerned, the dollars
of the very high average years look just as good as their sister coins of other
years and they show no evidence of being inferior in any way.

Occasional
bits of information are given which have to be investigated.

For
example, and as before mentioned, the Parliament dollars were distributed in
part through the postal system. Although no figures were given, I did obtain
them through the kindness of the Deputy Postmaster General, G. A. Boyle, and was
duly appreciated. Nothing is said about the dollars that were returned but we
must assume that they were eventually taken up by the banks.

There
is no separate 1940 Report. It is included as part of the 1939 Report and we are
informed that it was done to save paper. Being done in this way it is the
bulkiest of the Reports.

Anybody
who expected to get much information about the designers of Canadian coins from
the Reports would be severely disappointed. This is another thing which is hard
to understand. Sir Bertram Mackennal and Percy Metcalfe are not mentioned in the
1935 and 1936 Reports and this caused me a great amount of trouble, especially
with the latter. On the other hand, considerable attention is paid to Emanuel
Hahn. Nobody complains about this but surely the designer of the obverse
deserved attention of some kind if nothing more than mention of his name. All
other designers are mentioned and details of an interesting kind frequently
enough given.

Lack
of information can often enough give rise to embarrassing situations. In the
very early history of my research on the designers I wrote a letter to Philip
Spier enquiring about possible sources of detailed information and was told,
much to my disappointment, that the only person who had such knowledge was in
Australia
on vacation. Not until much later did I find out that it was Fred Bowman.
However, a letter was then directed to the Mint and I was given a list of the
dollar designers.

In
the list sent me, the name of Percy Metcalfe does not appear and Sir Bertram
Mackennal is given credit for the 1955 obverse. As might be supposed, I took it
for granted that such was the case and thought no more about it. When much later
the matter came up again Fred Bowman asked me if I knew that Percy Metcalfe
designed the 1935 obverse? I had to answer that I was entirely ignorant of it.
This brings us back to the Mint again.

Not
for one moment is it to be supposed that anything but an honest attempt to give
correct information was made. In this case, as far as I can see, the records
were at fault. Had Percy Metcalfe been mentioned in the 1935 Report, as I feel
he should have been, this error would not have been made. As it was, the Mint
was misled and through no fault save lack of documentary evidence. Also, had his
initials appeared on the coin the mistake would not have been made.

Once
in a while a difference in terms used make trouble. For instance, the Mint very
nearly always refers to proofs as specimen coins. There is nothing at all wrong
with this except that the first term is more widely used than the second among
people familiar with coins. A novice might well be pardoned if he did not happen
to know the exact nature of a specimen coin. When any choice of terms is
involved, the one most familiar should naturally be used.

Of
all coins given attention in the Reports, possibly the 1951 commemorative nickel
comes in for as much as any. Rightly so, for it is one of the most peculiarly
appropriate coins for an anniversary ever minted. However, the name of A. F.
Cronstedt, the Swedish discoverer of the element, goes without mention and the
more curiously inclined would have to look it up in case of its not being known.

Perhaps
some of the criticism that I have offered may appear to be ungracious and
carping, but it is not meant to be so. Official documents cannot escape the
human element and therefore they are not perfect although we often feel they can
sometimes be improved.

Greatly
to be lamented is the lack of the Mint Reports. Their value apparently dawned
upon many when it was too late and complete sets are few indeed with but three
north of the border and one south of it. Even the Canadian Numismatic
Association does not have all the Reports. This lack of Reports may have done no
great harm, but surely it has done no good. Numismatic research depends upon
such documents and is crippled without them. It is my belief that collectors
should more generally familiarize themselves with works of such nature. In any
event, a single copy of a Canadian Mint Report is enough to give the enquiring
collector a good idea as to what they are like, and the price of a quarter is
low enough.

Canadian
law requires the Mint Master to submit to the Minister of Finance on or before
the 31st day of March a Report setting forth all the activity of the previous
year. In his turn, the Minister of Finance must submit the Report to Parliament
forthwith, or should Parliament be not then sitting, within 15 days after the
commencement of the next ensuing session. Letters requesting Reports, when
desired by those who collect, should be directed to the Queen's Printer at
Ottawa
with the sum of 25c in Canadian currency.

The
appended tables have been studied with the greatest care and have been checked
several times. Errors are always possible, but it is my sincere hope that none
of any serious nature have been made.

The entire contents of "Canadian Silver Dollars" are ęCopyright
1961. Permission is granted to non-profit organizations and to individuals
for their personal use, to copy any of the material contained herein, on the
condition that such copies are not to be sold or otherwise used for profit, and
that Patrick Glassford is shown as the source of such information or material.

The Canadian Error Coins website (est. in 1997 by Patrick Glassford) is a
division of the Canadian Numismatic Publishing Institute, established in 1958 by
Somer James, publisher of many fine Canadian numismatic publications such as
"A GUIDE BOOK OF CANADIAN COINS, CURRENCY & TOKENS" and
"CANADIAN SILVER DOLLARS" by Starr Gilmore.

The Canadian Numismatic Publishing Institute (CNPI), and all its
existing copyrights,
are the sole property of Patrick Glassford.